NOTES TERMINAL
Note to Article III
ANOTHER DEBT OF JOHN SHAKESPEARE
Since my article on “Shakespeare and Asbies” appeared (“Athenæum,” 14th and 21st March) I have had two communications about the Shakespeares. The later, from Mr. Young, seems to suggest another mysterious debt of some John Shakespeare.
Henry Higford, gent., of Solihull, Warwickshire, in his own person appeared on the fourth day against John Shakysper, formerly of Stratford-upon-Avon in county Warwick, “whyttawer,” and against John Musshen, formerly of Walton Dobell in said county, on the plea that each of them should pay him £30 which they owed him; and against John Wheler, formerly of Stratford-on-Avon in said county, yeoman, on the plea that he should pay him 80s. which he owed him, and unjustly detained. And if they did not come and pay, that the Sheriff should bring their bodies here on Easter Day in five weeks (Common Pleas, Roll 1313, membrane 399, Easter 15 Eliz., 1573).
Now this was a “whyttawer nuper de Stratford.” Could this mean a leather-dresser for making gloves? Or could it mean a leather-dresser for making shoes? Was it the John Shakespeare who went to live in Clifford Chambers, and was confused with our John by earlier writers? Or could he be the John Shakespeare who ran his race in Stratford as “corvizer” from 1580 till 1592?
All these questions might be asked, as well as the more important one: Is there any reason to believe that the language at that date could fit John, William Shakespeare’s father? I should be glad to know.
“Athenæum,” 25th April 1914.
PS. Some correspondence followed on as to the meaning of “Whittawer,” and Mr. Arthur Betts sent me his pamphlet on the white tawers, or tanners of white leather. They were held in some discredit owing to their frequently receiving the skins of poached game, and they were forbidden to dwell near a royal forest. I had been puzzled by the use of “nuper” in the citation, but I find it was used only in one of three descriptions, to prevent evasion. I therefore think it must refer to our John Shakespeare.
Note to Article VII
“ADOLESCENS” AND “ADOLOCENTULA”
IN STRATFORD-ON-AVON REGISTER; IN RELATION TO GILBERT SHAKESPEARE
The application of the term “Adolescens” to “Gilbert Shakespeare,” in the Burial Register of Stratford-on-Avon, and the information it has been supposed to give concerning the poet’s family, make an examination of the context incumbent upon Shakespearean students. There are, indeed, some noteworthy peculiarities concerning the Stratford use of terms, which I have not seen in any other of the Registers which I have studied.
The Registers of Stratford are, however, like many others, a mixture of English and Latin entries. Sometimes Latin prevails for a page or two, and then English runs on for a like period, sometimes the entries are almost time about in each language, sometimes both languages are used in the same entry, as “Jane uxor John Davis als Keliam, she was Kild with a tinker on the Bridge, July 2ⁿᵈ 1599,” or “John filius William Walford Draper.” The commonest Latin terms are of course filius, filia, uxor, Vidua, clericus, generosus, but the writers were rarely careful with their genitives. There were occasional notes of a man’s trade, sometimes in Latin, much more frequently in English.
But there was one period during which Latin gained the upper hand, and that was the period after Mr. Bifield had finished his transcript of the early registers, and had given up signing its pages. The signature of “William Gilbard alias Higges minister” was a new one to the Register in 1603, though he had been known as assistant Schoolmaster and then as Curate, since 1563 at least. It is not clear whether there was a new Parish Clerk at the time, or whether the Curate wrote the notices himself, or if he gave any directions to aid the intelligence of the clerk. But coincident with this change of signature, there is a great increase in Latin phrases, many more qualifying adjectives are added, and attention is generally paid to the Latin cases. “Almsman” becomes “Elemosynarius,” or “Eliēmo;” “Bastard” becomes “Nothus” or “Notha”; trades are translated into Latin, as “Scissor,” “Lanio,” “Fab. lig.,” “Calcearius,” “Pistor.” Never before had there been any reference to age, or to condition, other than “Uxor,” “Vidua.” Now there is one case of “Margaret Urlle, Cælebs, 8ᵗʰ April 1609” who does not seem to have been born in the town. Early in the period which we may suppose Sir William Gilbard alias Higges to have controlled the entries, occurs the first use of “adolescens” in the Registers, and the only one, excepting that of Gilbert Shakespeare. “Anna Yat, adolescens, Jan. 8ᵗʰ 1602,” (Burials), On referring back, I find that one Anne Yate, daughter of John Yate, was baptized on 20th September 1573, and that another of the same name, daughter of Richard Yate, was baptized on 29th September 1589. It might be assumed that it was the younger of these two who was buried at thirteen years of age, though why, among all the other young girls buried there, she alone should be singled out to be described as “adolescens,” baffles explanation. Her father was still alive, and absence of any reference to him is also strange. If it were applied to the elder Anne, who was twenty-nine years old, it would be less surprising to find her father unnoticed, but “adolescens,” in its ordinary sense, could hardly have been applied to her. The only other contemporary of the name was a wife, married as Annys, buried as Anne Yate.
But if there are only two entries of “adolescens,” the first applied to a female, and the second to a male, there are many of a resembling word, “adolocentulus,” which should mean a very young man, but it is very difficult to guess what it really did mean in Stratford Latin.
“Isabella Rodes, Adolocentula” was buried 12th May 1604. She does not seem to have been born in the parish. There is no other mention of her name, so her age cannot be estimated, but as an “Annys Rodes, widow” had been buried a fortnight before, she might have been an orphan daughter. “Nicholas Lane, Adolocentulus, buried 16ᵗʰ Nov. 1604.” There was one Nicholas Lane, son of John Lane baptized in 1569, and another in 1584; the elder would have been thirty-five, the younger twenty. John Lane himself had been buried in 1600, so this entry would seem to fit the younger man. But on the other hand, “Richard Clarke, adolocentulus,” buried 10th June 1605, was the son of Henry Clarke, and had been baptized 11th March 1572, so that he would be in his thirty-third year. “Margaret Clarke, adolocentula,” buried 2nd June 1611, had been baptized in 1581 and was thus thirty years old. (She had an illegitimate son Thomas in 1605.) “Henry Ainge adolocentulus,” 24th December 1605, had been baptized on 5th February 1581 and was therefore twenty-four years old.
“Jone Hadon, Adolocentula” does not seem to have been born in the parish. “Ales Brage, Adolocentula,” 8th January 1610, had been baptized in July 1576, and was therefore about thirty-four. “Susanna Daniel, Adolocentula,” 17th November 1608, had been baptized on 24th May 1593, and would be fifteen. Her father had died in 1596, and she might be alone. The only other “adolocentula” does not seem to have been baptized in the parish.
The result of studying “adolocentula,” therefore, is as unsatisfactory as that of studying “adolescens.”
William Gilbard alias Higges signed the Register pages till July 1610, and he may have superintended them till May 1611, when the page was signed once by John Rogers, Vicar. In that year the curate, William Gilbert alias Higgs, died, and, strange to say, was buried the very day before Gilbert Shakespeare, i.e., on 2nd February 1611-2.
Does this imply that the clerk was left to his own classic inspirations or memories in writing the register, or that his superintendence was taken over by the succeeding assistant minister, Edward Woolmer? Under him the language of the text gradually simplified, until it took on a new varnish of Latin under Mr. Richard Watts.
But the fact remains, that “adolescens,” which had only once appeared before, never appears again, and it is difficult to gauge the extent of its meaning and use. It has been held by all writers to support Halliwell-Phillipps’ statement that the poet’s brother went to settle as a haberdasher in St. Bride’s, London, and lived to a great age. I have definitely proved that Halliwell-Phillips was mistaken in saying that Gilbert was a London haberdasher (see my article in the “Athenæum,” 29th December 1900, “John Shakespeare of Ingon, and Gilbert of St. Brides”), p. 62. The whole arguments of the family-wills tell against the notion of the survival of the poet’s brother, and my careful study in registers helps to convince me that the word “adolescens” is not here used in its normal and natural sense.
That should be “a youth” or “junior.” In either case if this is accepted as true of some unknown nephew of the poet, it would imply that Gilbert Shakespeare married somewhere, baptized this child somewhere, and died somewhere, and that the mother died somewhere, none of these facts having yet been proved. If it had its ordinary meaning, it would suggest that the father and mother were already dead, and the “youth” stood alone in the world. But if so, where was Gilbert buried? The name of Shakespeare would have been sure to have been noticed, either in London or in country registers.
The difficulties seem to me so great,[111] that the alternative seems a trifling one in comparison, that the word, for some inexplicable reason, has been unintelligently applied to the poet’s brother Gilbert. In this opinion I have taken much counsel from students of registers, and they agree that it is the most natural explanation of the puzzle. And therefore I believe firmly that Gilbert Shakespeare, the poet’s brother, died and was buried at the date recorded in the register (Feb. 3, 1611-2), which accounts for his not being mentioned in the poet’s will.
“Sonderabdruck aus dem Archiv für das Studium der Neueren Sprachen und Literaturen,” Band cxxiii, Heft 1-2, 1909.
Note to Article XI (1)
WILLIAM COMBE AND THE PROPOSED WELCOMBE ENCLOSURES, 1614-19
The story of the attempted enclosures at Welcombe at the beginning of the seventeenth century has always been considered chiefly of interest because Shakespeare’s name was associated with it. But the incidents are of great importance in the history of Stratford-on-Avon and its relation to William Combe, entirely apart from the interest Shakespeare gives to the proceedings, The facts are worth recalling in relation to the great fires, which I discussed in this paper lately under the title of “Fires and Thatch at Stratford-on-Avon.” Just about the time of the disastrous fire of 9th July 1614, John Combe, the money-lender, died. After various charitable bequests, in his will dated 28th January 1612-13, he desires to be buried in the church near his mother, and a convenient tomb to be set over him of the value of threescore pounds. He leaves his brother George Combe the land “called Parson’s Close, or Shakespeare’s Close” in Hampton; to his brother John Combe his property in Warwick; residuary legatees were William and Thomas Combe his nephews (proved 10th November 1616). Hardly had they inherited (before even they had proved their uncle’s will), William took it into his head to enclose the Common Fields of Welcombe, over most of which he was chief landlord. We can find a good many details of the proceedings, preserved in the crabbed characters in which Thomas Greene made his memoranda, in a few leaves which have been called “His Diary,” now among the Stratford Records. This shows that Shakespeare went up to London on 16th November, and next day Thomas Greene, then staying in London, “went to see him how he did.” They were both full of “the enclosures,” and Shakespeare told Greene the latest news of the plan and the schemes, adding that “he thought nothing would be done.” That very night, however, Greene drew up the petition of the town, and “gave it to Edmund to write fair, so that Greene and Mr. Wyatt might see it before it was wrytten to be presented to the Lordes,” that is, the Lords of the Privy Council. On the 22nd Greene records that he heard that Lord Carew meant to oppose the enclosing all he might, and Mr. Mainwaring said if he did not do it well he cared not to do it at all. This “Lord Carew” is he who married Joyce Clopton, and whose tomb is in the church at Stratford. Thomas Greene was Town Clerk, and he notes on 5th December that six of the company (himself among them) were to “go to Mr. Combe, and present their loves, and desire he would be pleased to forbeare the enclosing.” They went on the 9th, and were not satisfied with the results. William Combe said he would be glad of their loves, but the enclosure would not be hurtful to the town; indeed, there would be some profit in it. Thomas Combe said “they were all curres,” and spoke of “spitting one of the dogs.”
Mr. Spenser said the Lord Chancellor was their friend, and Sir Fulke Greville advised them on a precedent. But William Combe went on determinedly. “The Miscellaneous Documents” and reports of the Council meetings at the Hall give details of his actions. Thomas Greene says in his Diary on the 23rd December 1614, that at the Hall that day the company had written through him to Mr. Mainwaring and Mr. Shakespeare (and he himself wrote a private letter “to his cosen Shakespeare”) to prove the “inconvenience” of the proposed enclosure. Neither of the letters to Shakespeare has been preserved, but that to Mainwaring has, and from it we may have some notion of the arguments of the other. (Wheler MS., i, 109.) This Mr. Mainwaring was the steward and agent of the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, who seems to have had some interest in local affairs, and who in the earlier stages at least seems to have co-operated with William Combe. It was addressed “To the Worshipfull Arthur Mainwaring, Esq., at the Rt. Hon. the Lord Chancellor his howse.” The Bailiff and the company showed him that by the Charter of Edward VI the tithes were allowed them for the support of the almshouses, the school, and the bridge. “We hear that some land is conveyed to you in Welcombe, and that you intend enclosure. We entreat you to call to mind the manifold great and often miseries this Borough hath sustained by casualties of fires fresh in memory, and now of late one dying in the ashes of desolacion, and in your Christian meditations to bethink you that such inclosure will tend to the great disabling of performance of those good meanings of that godly king, to the ruyne of this Borough wherein live above seven hundred poor which receive almes, whose curses and clamours will be poured out to God against the enterprise of such a thing.” That was the way the Corporation looked at the enclosure. They “could not fulfil their trust to do the best possible for the town” without opposing it tooth and nail. And Thomas Greene could not fulfil his duty to the Corporation without working along with them, and we may be sure that his letter to Shakespeare was strong enough to convince the poet also. The Christmas of 1614 was a gloomy one for Stratford, with the ruins of blackened houses lying around, the poor calling for shelter and food, and the great dread of this new disaster looming all the more largely before them because of the general depression. The year 1615 saw a pitched battle. The aldermen took what legal action they could in their own right; they filed their “complaints” in many courts; they were driven into unnecessary expenses of various kinds; they sent Thomas Greene often to Warwick and to London; and all because of William Combe’s unsettling whim. He had sent his own servants and employed others, Stephen Sly among them, to dig ditches round the land he wished to enclose, and Thomas Greene writes that on 7th January “William Combe had told Baylis that some of the better sort meant to go and throw down the ditches, and said ‘I would they durst’ in a threatening manner with very great passion and anger.” Two days after some of the Corporation did, indeed, send on their spades to avoid a riot, and they went themselves and filled in the ditches. They were personally injured by Combe’s servants. William Combe said, “They were a company of factious knaves, and he will do them all the harm he can,” and added, “they were puritan knaves, and underlings in their colour.” Next day Mr. Archer was appealed to as a justice of the peace and a commoner to prevent a breach of the peace. He proposed for the preventing of tumults that there should be a stay of proceedings; that no further ditching or ploughing should be done till the 24th March, and no further ditches to be thrown down before that date. (While they were discussing these matters, however, the remainder of the ditches were being filled in by women and children.) On the 11th of January 1614-15 they took an attorney’s opinion as to what constituted a riot; and on the 12th Mr. Replingham came to the Hall, hoping to talk the company over. The Bailiff said he would never agree to the enclosures as long as he lived. Then Mr. Replingham wanted him to bind some of the inhabitants over to good behaviour. Thomas Greene said he would not bind them for all his clerk’s fees. On the 16th Mr. Combe went to London to push his cause as he might. He then rated the value of the enclosure at £250 per annum. On the 25th of January Mr. Chandler and Mr. Daniel Baker went to London to take advice on their side. A lull seemed to come into the proceedings, probably because of Mr. Archer’s decision above noted. On the 24th of February they resolved to take Sir Edward Coke’s opinion. On the 22nd of March Mr. Chandler for the Corporation did present a petition to the Lord Chief Justice at Coventry, and Mr. Combe called him a knave and a liar to his face. The Lord Chief Justice bade Chandler remind him of the case when he came to Warwick on the 27th. There he definitely said that it was against the laws of the realm and must be stopped. Thomas Greene says in his Diary, 1st April 1615: “Mr. Baker told me at his shop-house that the day before he was in Sir William Somerville’s and Mr. Combe’s company a-hunting in Awston fields, and Mr. Combe told him he might thank me for the petition, and offered to sell him lands to the amount of £50 per annum lying in Bridgetown among the Lord Carew’s land there, and that he never meant to inclose.” On the 2nd of April Mr. Combe asked Mr. Alderman Parsons why he was against the enclosures, and he said, “We are all sworn men for the good of the Borough and to preserve their inheritance, therefore they would not have it said in future time they were the men which gave way to the undoing of the town; and that all three fires were not so great a loss to the town as the enclosures would be.” On the 12th of April Mr. Parsons reported that he had been beaten by Mr. Combe’s men.
On the 19th April Laurence Wheeler and Lewis Hiccox started ploughing on their own land within the intended enclosure, and Mr. Combe railed at them; but the next day they returned, and Mr. Nash and many other tenants did the same, and Mr. Combe became still more wrathful. Mr. Combe’s next move was to try to get Sir Edward Greville and Sir Arthur Ingram to sell him the royalty of the town; but Sir Henry Rainsford told Greene he would never get that, and added that he was going to sue Mr. Combe on his own account in an action for trespass, and would sue him in the Star Chamber for riots, and he was going to sue Thomas Combe on a bond for £40, and so the bitterness spread. September saw fresh quarrels with Mr. Combe. On 14th December Greene notes, “Mr. Francis Smith told me that Mr. Thomas Combe told him that his brother would plow this year for his own good, but next year would lay it down to spite me. The Combes questioned my Lord Chief Justice’s authority to make any such order as was made, there being nothing before him.” And again there was another Christmas clouded by threatened enclosures, Shakespeare’s last Christmas upon earth.
On 21st February 1615-16, the Corporation agreed that the enclosure should be “made a Town Cause,” and the charges defrayed out of the revenue, for the battle was becoming fiercer than ever. Their opponent, Mr. William Combe, had been made High Sheriff of the county, the very officer delegated by the Crown to prevent riots, etc., which he was really rousing. Mr. Baker on the 24th told him and his brother “at the Bridge end towards the woodyard that he marvelled they would, contrary to my Lord’s order, enclose and dig in the Common. They said they hoped my Lord would not hinder them from doing what they would with their own, and Mr. William Combe said the ditch was made to save his corn.” The Combes retorted on Mr. Baker that “the Corporation had given money to my lord’s gentleman to work my lord, i.e., Sir Edward Coke, and that was no good employment for the Town revenue!” In Mr. Sheriff’s absence Mr. Thomas Combe set some workmen to work, and when the Sheriff came home he approved of it, and promised the workmen they should come to no harm. On the 1st of March some members of the Council went to inspect and found workmen “finishing twenty-seven ridges of the enclosure, acre’s length a-piece.” “Mr. Sheriff told Morrell that if he were not out of authority he would send him to gaol, and having divers times impounded his sheep, bade him tell my Lord Coke that for every several trespass he would have a several action, and for every sixpence damage he would recover against him six pounds.”
On the 2nd of March 1615-16, Mr. Chandler having sent his man Michael Ward to the place where Combe’s men were digging to fling down the ditches, they assaulted him, and would not let him proceed, and Stephen Sly said that “if the best in Stratford were to go there to throw the ditch down he would bury his head at the bottom.”
No wonder that in the petition of the 27th of March 1616, the Corporation stated, “Mr. Combe being of such an unbridled disposition he should be restrained.” In that Lent term at the Assize Court my Lord Coke delivered his final decision, and told Combe to set his mind at rest, for he would “neither enclose nor lay down any arable land, nor plough up any ancient greensward.” The Corporation told Mr. Combe that they desired his goodwill, but they would ever withstand the enclosure: and on the 10th of April Mr. High Sheriff told Mr. John Greene that he was out of hope now ever to enclose.
So Shakespeare sank to rest that month with the belief that the struggle was over, and there would be no enclosure in Welcombe. But it was not over yet by a long way. Mr. William Combe made up his mind to defy the Lord Chief Justice as well as the Corporation. He moved gently now, however. On the 24th of June 1616, he wrote to the Corporation from Abchurch, desiring their loves, and showing how he would remedy all their objections, a long letter still among the records. They replied that they were desirous of his love and of peace, but they prayed him against the enclosure, and said they would by all lawful means hinder it. The miscellaneous documents of Stratford-on-Avon show that the Bailiff and Burgesses of Stratford also complained to the Court of Common Pleas against William Combe for enclosing. Their notes show “The points to be complayned of and contayned in our petition are that Mr. Combe hath not laid down meres according to my Lord Hobart’s order, and the certificates of the justices upon the reference. And that he hath decayed 117 ridges of tilling and neglecting the farming thereof contrary to the order and contrary to his own word and promise made to the judges and justices at the tyme of their conference. My Lord Coke at Lent Assizes 13 James I, and my Lord Hobart confirmed this assize. The grief for decaying is the destruction of our common, and the decaying of the tilling is the losse of our tythes with which our poor are free.” They also presented “My Lord Coke and my Lord Hubbard their orders for the restraint of enclosier and decay of tillage in the feeldes of Stratford, 1617.”
But the struggle continued during 1618, though more warily on Combe’s side. The Privy Council had become interested. It had dawned on them that they had had to excuse the subsidies from Stratford more than once on account of the fires, and if it happened, as a petition from the Corporation suggested, they might have to excuse them again on account of Combe’s enclosure. On the 14th of February 1618 the Privy Council referred the consideration of the Stratford petition to the Master of the Rolls and Sir Edward Coke, and wrote officially to William Combe in a very sharp way. He was to restore the enclosures to their pristine condition, and whatever the judges decided to do with him in regard to the course he had taken in defiance of the order of the justices in assize and the certificate of Sir Richard Verney he must not fail to obey, or he would answer it at his peril.
Apparently Combe was at last alarmed, and gave in, not too soon, for decisions had gone against him in every court, and orders were out against him for “contempt of court” also. Influence saved him from some of the consequences. In the Stratford Miscellaneous Documents there is one called “Dispensation to William Combe for enclosing,” or “Mr. Combe, his pardon for enclosing.” But he had to pay a fine of £4 for that, and to go to all the expense of putting the land back as the people were used to see it. By the summer of 1619 Stratford-on-Avon and its Corporation were at rest as to Combe’s enclosure.
I have found that the final award for the Stratford enclosures, under the Act of Parliament for enclosures, 15 George III, was signed 21st January 1775. They amounted to 1,635 acres, 1 rood, 18 perches.
“Stratford-on-Avon Herald,” 23rd August 1912.
Note to Article XI (2)
FIRES AND THATCH IN STRATFORD
The distressing fires which so frequently raged in Stratford-on-Avon during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may be considered among the causes likely to account somewhat for the fact that no letters of Shakespeare’s have come down to us. These fires (1594-6, 1598, 1614) were almost of national importance, as they were serious enough to force the Corporation to petition the Queen for the remission of taxes—which was granted (Wheeler MS. i. 46); and sometimes also they had permission to collect for their poor in the neighbouring towns and counties. A touching letter in 1598 from Richard Quiney as “the poor suitor from Stratford,” whose purse is weakened by long sojourning in London “shews that the Collector was retaining £24 10s., while the poor needed it,” is in Wheler MS., i, 54.
In the petition of 1598 they state that the town had lost £12,000 by two very grievous fires, on which petition the Queen was graciously pleased to instruct the Attorney-General to give a book of discharge for the subsidy, 17th December 1598. They again petitioned to be relieved of their duties to the Queen and to the poor in 1601 (7th June). Again a dreadful fire took place in 1614, at the time of the death of John Combe, when eighty-five houses were burned down, besides many smaller edifices, and again petitions went up to the Queen for the remission of taxes, as they had 700 poor on their hands. Their distress and anxiety were intensified just at that time by William Combe’s determined efforts to start enclosures at Welcombe. They naturally saw in this a reduction of tithes, from which were endowed their school and almshouses, and in their many petitions against his high-handed action they always referred to their town as “being greatly ruinated by fire.” At last it seems to have struck some of the members of the Privy Council that they should inquire why Stratford should have more than its share of fires. Some one in Stratford found the cause in the thatched roofs of the period, and the Corporation forbade any more houses to be built with thatched roofs; indeed, ordered the thatch of old houses to be exchanged for the greater safety of tiles and slates. This would materially change the appearance of Stratford, not improving it in an artistic sense, but making it much safer. Now, there are papers in London which often fill out the information preserved among the valuable records of Stratford-on-Avon. I have come across some letters in the unpublished Register of the Privy Council, which may be added to the history of the town. They show that some one, or some party of inhabitants, had complained to the Privy Council against three men, who persisted in using thatch, and they tell their own story, so I give them in full.
16th March, 1618-19. To the Bayliffe, Chief Aldermen, and Towne Clarcke for the tyme being of Stratford-upon-Avon.
Wee sende you heere enclosed a petition exhibited unto us on the behalf of that Burrough of Stratford-upon-Haven, wherein is humbly represented unto us the greate and lamentable losse happened to that towne by casualty of Fyer, which of late years hath been very frequently occasioned by means of thatched cottages, stacks of straw, furze, and such-like combustible stuffe, which are suffered to be erected, and made confusedly in most of the principal parts of the town without restraint: and which being still continewed cannot but prove very dangerous and subject to the like inconveniences. And, therefore, wee have thought meete for the better safety and securing that towne from future dainger, hereby to authorize and require you to take order that from henceforward there be not any house or cottage that shall be erected by any owner of land or other, suffered to be thatched, nor any stacks or pyles of strawe or furzes made in any part of that towne, either upon the streetes or elsewhere, that may in any way endanger the same by fyer as formerly, but that all the houses and cottages to be hereafter built within the towne be covered with tyles or slates, and the foresayd stacks and pyles removed to fitt and convenient places without the towne. And for the houses and cottages already built and covered with strawe there, wee do likewise require you to cause the same to be altered and reformed according to theis directions with as much expedition as may stand with convenience, and as the safety and wellfare of that towne may any way require. Herein wee require you to take order accordingly, and in case of any opposition to theis our directions, whereby the performance of the same may be interrupted or stayed to make certificate unto us of the names of such as shall not conforme themselves accordingly that such further order may be taken therein as shall be expedient.
10th November, 1619. A warrant to John Foster, one of the messingers of his Majesties’ Chamber, to bring before their lordships, George Badger, William Shawe, and John Beesley alias Coxey, inhabitants in the Burrow of Stratford-upon-Avon, in the county of Warwick.
26th November, 1619. A letter to [no name added]. You shall understand that complaint was made unto us by a petitioner in the name of the Baliffe and Burgesses of the Town of Stratford-upon-Haven that whereas there was an order lately made at this Board restrayning the use of thatching of houses and cottages in the towne to prevent and avoyd the danger and great losse by fier that of late tyme hath often happened there by means of such thatched houses to the utter ruyne and overthrow of many of the inhabitants: Theis three parties, George Badger, William Shaw, and John Beesley, refusing to conforme themselves to our said order, had in contempt thereof erected certain thatched houses and cottages to the ill example of others, and the endangering of the towne by the like casualty of fire. Whereuppon they being convented before us, forasmuch as they do absolutely deny that they have shewed any such disobedience at all to our said order nor committed any manner of act contrary thereunto since the publication of the same in that towne. And that the partie that exhibited the complaint against them in the name of the towne did not appear to make good his informacion, wee have thought good to dismiss the said Badger, Shaw, and Beesley for the present, and withall to pray and require you to take due examynacion of the foresaid complaint, which you shall receive here enclosed, and upon full informacion of the truth thereof to make certificate unto us of what you find therein that such further order may be taken as shall be meete.
The complaint has not been preserved, but it would have been interesting to us to have known who sent it up, and what were the arguments used.
“Stratford-on-Avon Herald,” 12th April 1912.
Note to Article XIII
SHAKSPEARE’S BUST AT STRATFORD
ITS RESTORATION IN 1749
I had been searching for years for contemporary notices of the alteration, in every possible direction, but I only discovered what I wanted a few months ago, viz., the letters of those concerned in the restoration.
The figures are not so large, nor the details quite so full, as I had hoped they would be; but, such as they are, they ought to be laid before the public. They are taken from the Wheler Collection, Stratford-on-Avon, a number of copies from the MSS. of the Rev. Joseph Greene, Master of the Grammar School. The series begins with the account of the reasons for the movement towards restoration:
As the generous proposals of the proprietors of the two greatest playhouses in this Kingdom were kindly accepted and encouraged, in relation to each of them acting a play for the sole purpose of erecting a new monument to the memory of Shakespeare in Westminster Abbey, and as the curious original monument and bust of that incomparable poet, erected above the tomb that enshrines his dust in the Church of Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, is through length of years and other accidents become much impaired and decayed, an offer has been kindly made by the judicious and much esteemed Mr. John Ward and his company to act one of Shakespeare’s plays, vizt., “Othello; or, The Moor of Venice” (in the Town Hall) at Stratford, on Tuesday, the ninth of this instant, September, 1746, the receipts arising from which representation are to be solely appropriated to the repairing of the original monument aforesaid.
Then follows a “copy of an old play-bill at the time of repairing and beautifying Shakespeare’s monument, with the Rev. Joseph Greene’s remarks on the performers. The printed bill was drawn up by Greene himself, and somewhat corrected by Mr. John Ward, grandfather of the present celebrated Mrs. Siddons (MSS. penes Mr. George).” The annotations by Greene give some suggestions of the quality of the players.
The part of Othello to be performed by Mr. Ward.
| Iago | by | Mr. Elrington (a young man, acts well). |
| Cassio | Mr. Redman (a middle-aged man, too indifferent in acting). | |
| Brabantio | Mr. Woodward (an elderly man; some things well, others wretchedly). | |
| Montano | Mr. Butler (an old man; comic parts very well). | |
| Roderigo | Mr. Butcher (a young man, low humour pretty well). | |
| Gratiano | Mr. Bourne (an elderly man, low humour very well). | |
| Doge of Venice by Dts. | ||
| Desdemona | by | Mrs. Elrington (a second wife, but young; a very agreeable actress). |
| Emilia | Mrs. Ward (a middle-aged woman, a good actress). | |
With several Entertainments of singing between the acts by Mrs. Elrington and Mrs. Wilson[112] (Mrs. Elrington’s voice is rather more agreeable than Mrs. Wilson’s, but Mrs. Wilson has most judgment in music).
It is therefore humbly wished that such persons as have a taste for the inimitable thoughts, the sublime expressions, the natural and lively descriptions and characters of that great genius, and consequently a value for his memory, will encourage the proposed method of perpetuating it by attending the play at that juncture for the laudable purpose of rebeautifying his venerable monument and effigies.
N.B.—The money received on this occasion is to be deposited in the hands of the churchwardens.
In these days of Shakespeare Memorial Schemes, Shakespeare Societies, and Shakespeare Exhibitions, it is well to remember the simple aims and methods of eighteenth-century Memorial Committees in their early proceedings, and take warning from the results of delay, the causes for which are not clearly explained. It was not the fault of the players that there was even so much delay as there was.
By the following copies from Greene’s MSS. it appears “that some disputes arose between the cashier-churchwardens for 1746, and the contributors towards repairing Shakespeare’s Monument, which reparation did not take place till 1748. Meetings took place, and forms were proposed for the churchwardens’ signatures to compel the cashier to pay the money to the artist when he had completed his undertaking.”
Copy of a notice published on Sunday, November 20, 1748, in Stratford Parish Church by the clerk, me ibid concionant. MSS. Greene:—
“I am desired to give notice that on Friday, 25th Nov. next, there will be a meeting at the Market Hall in Stratford of those persons who contributed for the repairing of Shakspeare’s monument, in order to resolve upon a proper method of repairing and beautifying the monument aforesaid.”
It seems that few or none attended, and that nothing was then done. There was, however, a form drawn up which was meant to be signed by those present:
We whose names are hereunder written or annexed, contributors to the sum raised at the Town Hall of Stratford-upon-Avon, for repairing and beautifying the original monument of Shakspeare the poet, agree that the direction and execution of that work shall be committed to Mr. John Hall, Limner; and (provided he takes care, according to his ability, that the monument shall become as like as possible to what it was, when first erected) that then the money already raised for the purpose aforesaid shall be forthwith paid him upon finishing the work. We will also use our endeavours that such further money shall be collected and given him as, with the former collections, may make up the whole sum of sixteen pounds.
This was not then and there signed, but apparently was brought forward again at a meeting held at the Falcon Inn, at which were “present Sir Hugh Clopton, Rev. Mr. Kenwrick, Rev. Mr. Preston, ye Master of the Free School (Greene), Mr. Alderman Haynes, Mr. Joseph Broom, Mr. John Hall. A form proposed by Mr. Greene to the gentlemen at the Falcon, but rejected by Mr. Kenwrick (the vicar), who thought it did not sufficiently limit what was to be done by Mr. Hall, as a form which he himself had drawn up. November 30, 1748.” The differences were trifling. “Agreed: That Mr. John Hall, Limner, shall repair and beautify, or have the direction of repairing and beautifying, the original monument of Shakespeare the poet, etc.”
Mr. Joseph Greene, who seems to have had the work of restoration very much at heart, had before the meetings at the Falcon written a letter to Mr. John Ward, who was then at Hereford:
I believe you are by this time no stranger to the disputes arisen on this side the country concerning the disposal of the money collected at your representation of ‘Othello’ and generously given by you for the repairing of Shakespeare’s original monument. That it should lye as useless in our churchwardens’ hands, as cash in the trunk of a miser, is making it not current, but dormant coin, an impropriety which many of us can by no means approve of: wherefore to set aside all idle surmises which any may chance to entertain of knavishly mismanaging, or foolishly not managing, the devoted sum, some gentlemen in our neighbourhood have requested by me that you would speedily by letter, or some way which you think most proper, signify to the parties concerned what your intentions are, or what directions you would choose to give concerning the money, that it may once more make its public appearance in open daylight, and that a blacksmith’s sable apron may no longer be used as a napkin wherein to hide your talents.
Be pleased, Sir, to inform us whether you would have the affair postponed untill next summer, when (as we are assured) you intend to revisit us, or whether you would chuse to have the business forthwith proceeded upon, and some ingenious artificer or other to be employed directly for the purpose. If the case, as stated in this latter respect, is agreeable to you, whether, if any particular ingenious person should be pitched upon and approved by the majority of, or most considerable among, those who contributed that night, whether in such case you would chuse to acquiesce. Your setting us clear in these matters is much desired by many persons, well-wishers to the memory of Shakespeare and to the person of Mr. Ward, his and our ingenious benefactor. Particularly be pleased to believe these the wishes of, Sir, your very humble servant, Joseph Green, Stratford-upon-Avon. Nov. 23, 1748.
Mr. Ward replied to this:
Sir,—I received the favor of yours, and am sensible of the honor you and the gentlemen do me in appealing to my judgment with regard to the monument of Shakespeare. I am ignorant of any disputes that may have happened on that account, but own I was surprised when I heard that nothing had been done in that affair. I entirely submit to the opinions of the gentlemen who so generously contributed to the play in every respect, and, as I intend paying a visit to Stratford next summer, I hope to have the pleasure of seeing the monument of our immortal Bard compleatly finished; and will readily come into any proposal to make good the sum for the use intended, if what is already in the churchwardens’ hands should prove deficient.—I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, John Ward. Hereford, Dec. 3, 1748.
The Second Meeting at the Falcon.
On Saturday evening, about nine o’clock, Mr. Kenwrick having exhibited at Lilly’s at the Falcon a paper signifying what Mr. Hall was to do, and of what materials to repair the monument of Shakespeare, he proposed that Mr. Hall and Mr. Spur should sign the agreement, the former that he might be obliged to do the work in a compleat manner, and the latter that upon its being finished he should pay to Mr. Hall the sum of twelve pounds ten shillings; but though Mr. Hall seemed ready to sign this, and a pen and ink were called for publicly, yet John Spur absolutely refused, and said he would never sign any paper for the delivery of the money, ridiculously vaunting it that his word ought to be taken as credibly as his bond, and his word would go for £1,000. However, at last he was prevailed upon to declare before the undermentioned witnesses that as soon as the monument was finished he would, without further delay, pay the money. This affair happened December 10, 1748.
Witnesses—The Rev. Mr. Kenwrick, Vicar of Stratford; Joseph Greene, clerk, Master of the Free School; Mr. Turbitt, mercer; John Spur, blacksmith, cashier, churchwardens of the borough when the money was collected in 1746; Mr. Benjamin Haynes, glover; Mr. Joseph Broom, weaver (for the borough); Mr. Samuel Morris, farmer; Mr. John Southam, of Welcombe, farmer (for the parish churchwardens in 1748); Mr. John Hall, undertaker of the work.
Another set of letters were “transcribed from the Greene MSS. penes Mr. Wright, Lichfield.” The first from Mr. George Steevens, editor of the Quarto edition of Shakespeare, dated Hampstead, 25th June 1770, to the Honourable James West, Esq., formerly President of the Royal Society, then residing at Alscot, near Stratford-on-Avon. He enclosed a letter from Mr. Theophilus Lane, of Paston Court, near Hereford, addressed to himself, and asked Mr. West to inform him whether the fact relative to Shakespeare’s monument may be depended on, “as it should be added to the other little anecdotes already known concerning him, if it can be well ascertained.” He also asked a confirmation of some conversations he had once had with his honourable friend some years previously.[113]
The letter Steevens enclosed from Mr. Theophilus Lane itself encloses another from a friend of his who had missed seeing him on the day they both visited Shakespeare’s tomb. This friend had misread the date of Mrs. Hall’s tombstone, and could not harmonize it with the date on Shakespeare’s. He considered that Shakespeare’s monument had little authority as to its date and inscription, and thought that the monument must have been put up after everybody had died who knew him.
This letter Theophilus Lane had forwarded to Steevens, and Steevens to the Honourable James West. He apparently in his turn had submitted it to the Rev. Joseph Greene, as the latter writes to Mr. West a long letter containing his strictures on it. He shows that the confusion of dates arose from misreading the date of Mrs. Hall’s death as 1640 instead of 1649, which can be corrected from the parish registers, and therefore that the other arguments based upon this mistake are, of course, valueless; and adds:
Applause is due to every investigator of Truth, provided he is sufficiently attentive in his enquiries; and although I allow this letterwriter’s superstructural remarks are ingenious enough, yet as he did not sufficiently examine the solidity of his foundation, I cannot think him entitled to any man’s thanks.
This letter is only of importance as illustrating a great deal of the shallow criticism of Shakespeare, which is based upon preliminary errors made by the critics themselves. In this case, we might have hoped that the Rev. Joseph Greene would have explained about the restoration of the tomb, so lately carried out under his supervision, and settled the degree of fidelity with which Mr. John Hall had carried out his instructions. Unfortunately, the unnamed writer having only attempted to criticise the dates, which were quite able to be checked, the Rev. Joseph Greene did not think fit to account for the extraordinary freshness of the tomb so lately “beautified,” a freshness which was very likely to have first roused the doubt as to “its authority” in the writer’s mind, if he had not known all the circumstances.
This is all my new information, but it is something to go on. I have not italicized the important words in my transcripts, but I may now remind my readers that by 1746 the “curious original” was much “impaired and decayed,” a decay so serious as to rouse the actively sympathetic feelings of Mr. John Ward towards necessary restoration. The fact is recorded that Mr. John Hall was to have the doing of the work of “repairing and rebeautifying,” or “the direction” of it. But that “materials” were to be used.
My arguments are these. No one would call the present tomb a “curious” one; but, as represented by Dugdale in his “Antiquities of Warwick” (1651), it is “curious,” a curiousness which had increased, by the process of decay, when Rowe produced it in his “Life,” 1709. Mr. John Hall, acting in all good faith, after provincial notions of restoration in the eighteenth century, would fill up the gaps, restore what was missing, as he thought it ought to be, and finally repaint it according to the original colours, traces of which he might still be able to see in the hollows of the bust.
It would only be giving good value for his money to his churchwardens if he added a cloak, a pen, and manuscript. He could not help changing the expression, from the worn and thoughtful face preserved by Dugdale, to the plumped-out foundation he made in some “material” convenient for his re-beautifying colours. I have stated elsewhere that I consider the so-called “portrait” at the birth-place to have been painted either by Hall or from Hall, and the little, old representation of Shakespeare’s tomb lent by the Earl of Warwick for the present Shakespeare Exhibition at Whitechapel Art Gallery probably dates from the same period.
I myself consider Dugdale and his draughtsmen wonderfully careful for their period. Those tombs which have not been altered are remarkably faithful representations. See, for instance, the tomb of Sir Thomas Lucy at Charlecote. Now, Dugdale was a Warwickshire man, born only a comparatively short distance from Stratford, eleven years before Shakespeare died. He was an admirer of Shakespeare, and knew the bust he engraved. He was in Stratford in attendance on Queen Henrietta Maria when, at the outbreak of the Civil War, she stayed in Shakespeare’s house as the guest of his daughter, Mrs. Hall. There was every reason to believe that he would be more careful in regard to representing Shakespeare’s tomb (instead of less careful) than he was with others.
The second edition of Dugdale’s “Warwickshire” was revised, corrected, expanded, the illustrations checked, and added to by Dr. Thomas, who was also a Warwickshire man, residing very near Stratford-on-Avon. And he produced the representation of the original tomb from the same unaltered block which Dugdale used. There is, therefore, little reason to doubt that Dugdale was fairly correct both in the face and figure of the “curious monument,” and that the alterations made in 1748-9, great as they are, did not strike the gentlemen of Stratford-on-Avon as anything worse than “beautifying.” The dates and verses were left as they were, and the monument, thus strengthened, survives to preserve the memory of the “Sweet Swan of Avon!”
All this has no bearing on the Baconian controversy. It only relates to the likeness of the presentment and the reliability of Dugdale.
“Pall Mall Gazette,” 18th and 21st November 1910.
P.S.—My later discoveries appear on p. 122.
FINIS